• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Something From Nothing

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,466
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
In any case, even if the vacuum does contain enough energy to create virtual particles, those particles are created from the energy of the vacuum, not from nothing.
Sure, but if the universe is expanding (and it is), then more vacuum (and hence more vacuum energy) is coming into existence from nothing. That's something from nothing, even if no "virtual" particles were generated (but lots are).
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
In any case, even if the vacuum does contain enough energy to create virtual particles, those particles are created from the energy of the vacuum, not from nothing.
Aha! Causality is saved.

I am just poking at those who seem to believe something can come and go to non existence. Something to liven up the philosophy forum.

People in the past on science threads used virtual particles as a proof of something from nothing negating causality.

I think an theist used virtual particles claimed to be something om nothing as a proof of god and creationism.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,600
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In other news, I saw an old man yelling at some particles to Get Off My Lawn, blaming all that 'virtual' junk they are into these days for the fact they can't seem to find the energy anymore...
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Uhura contact Star Fleet command and apprise then of our situation. We have found Jaryn and he is bombarding us with virtual particles, and so far our virtual shields are holding.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,600
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
"Something from Nothing"

The funniest part about
This is that the particles
I bombard with are very real,
Along with the shapes imparted
Among their multitudes.

These shapes are imparted upon
The multitudinous particles,
Into probability: calculations crunched by
Numerous neurons catching these wavy wanderings
Then interpreting them thus.

These propagations propel people,
To see that some things that
However material still magical they be.
For the least of these things
One must have wonder.

From whence comes energy?

We know not.
 
Last edited:

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Energy is deriv from rltve stat of matter. Falling water can do work, That leads ibto cosmolgy, origins, and causality.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,481
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Well, at one time observation showed conclusively that the universe revolevd around te Erath.
. . .
This is like debating with unscientific theists. Ignore the question and claim truth.

Interesting! I am an amateur student of ancient mathematics and astronomy and didn't know this. I'm aware of the complicated Ptolemaic model (though it is imperfect, for example mispredicting Venus' phases); and even before telescopes were developed to study Venus' phases, several ancient thinkers found other flaws. The Ptolemaic model is of the same ilk as the complicated model used by Modern Flat-Earthists.

The ancient Greeks invented the concept of proof. Can you summarize briefly how they proved the Ptolemaic model?

In other news, I saw an old man yelling at some particles to Get Off My Lawn, blaming all that 'virtual' junk they are into these days for the fact they can't seem to find the energy anymore...

Yes, the blue pills no longer work that well for me either, but I take what I can get, and anyway ... (No, No, I'm not revealing ALL the details of my secret life.)
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I was not invoking Greek science. I was making the point that any observation incuding particle physics in a collider is not absolute.

Ancient Zog looked up and it was obvious the Earh was the e center of the universe. He looked at the ocean and concluded the horizon was the end of the Earth where one would fall off..

Science is more sophisticated, but it is still limited observation.

I was aware of Aristarcus. The Greeks had geometry. One can do a lot with similar triangles. Prolemy not off the top of my head.

 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
39,121
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
In any case, even if the vacuum does contain enough energy to create virtual particles, those particles are created from the energy of the vacuum, not from nothing.
Sure, but if the universe is expanding (and it is), then more vacuum (and hence more vacuum energy) is coming into existence from nothing. That's something from nothing, even if no "virtual" particles were generated (but lots are).
Does make me ponder whether there is "nothing" to begin with. You can't get "something from nothing" if there is no such thing as "nothing".

A: You can't get something from nothing.
B: Makes sense. But can you physically demonstrate nothing to me?
A: Umm...
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,600
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In any case, even if the vacuum does contain enough energy to create virtual particles, those particles are created from the energy of the vacuum, not from nothing.
Sure, but if the universe is expanding (and it is), then more vacuum (and hence more vacuum energy) is coming into existence from nothing. That's something from nothing, even if no "virtual" particles were generated (but lots are).
Does make me ponder whether there is "nothing" to begin with. You can't get "something from nothing" if there is no such thing as "nothing".

A: You can't get something from nothing.
B: Makes sense. But can you physically demonstrate nothing to me?
A: Umm...
I think an equal question is, "can you get nothing from something?"

Conservation seems to imply you can't.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,615
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Something from non existence’ to consistence is analogous to creationism regardless of who proposes it, scientific credentials or not.
[/quote

I don't see the analogy. Creationism involves a person with intent, someone who decides to cause something.

A universe that occurs without reason or source is not created.


]
... There is nothing that says a virtual particle comes from any kind of ‘non existence’.
[/QUOTE]

Stipulated.

But, while we're near the subject, let me mention this: If nothing comes from nothing, then gods can't make a universe from nothing. And if gods can make universes from nothing, then it is not true that nothing comes from nothing -- which invalidates their whole argument.

A Christian once responded to this point by saying that god made the universe from his own preexisting self, so the universe was not actuallly made from nothing. Which argument only leads to infinite regress; if we've got infinite regress, why do we need a god?




...

Nothing happens in zero time,
[/QUOTE]

It either does or it doesn't. We don't have to insist that it doesn't, because that gives the Christians a hiding place.

Tactically, it's better to point out that if causes don't have to precede effects, then the universe needn't have a first cause. It could have a last cause. The universe may be yet to be caused, perhaps by a particle accelerator. We don't need a god for that.

No energy and mass and no causation is what I call magic. Abracadabra and a particle appears and dispears.
[/QUOTE]

Magic doesn't always entail gods.


A sequence of particle creation and extinction can not be instantaneous unless you want to dispense with causallity and C as a limit.

They'll happily abandon causality or logic or anything else, if that helps their argument. What they don't like is to be called on it.

When they tactically renounce causality, you say, "Ah, so the universe doesn't need a cause?"
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
In pop clture the BB has become a secular creation myth. Pepole say the universe began with BB without any qualifications. Pop science shows.

Culturally it serves the same purpose as creationist myths.

The BB does not posit any ultimate origins, it does not start at t0. The BB does not violate causality in any general sense.

To me philosophically the creationist myth and the imaginedBB initial conditions are of the same ilk. Imagination which can never be demonstrated.

The BB is a modern answer to the perennial question 'where did this all come from'.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,232
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,600
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
Once upon a time there was a field. This field was composed of balanced charges across objects that are, for the moment, unimportant.

This field was stable, in symmetry, wherein as time passes, nothing changed.

Suddenly, a great many events of inexplicable nature happen in this field region, originating from an inaccessible region of the field, and whose impetus came from an even more exotically inaccessible field, or possibly a superposition of such exotic fields.

A great many things start to happen, and the system starts reconfiguring repeatedly in ways that accord with a series of transitions allowed within the system, and from among them are selected one of those transitions when a transition is required by it's mechanics.

Eventually this stabilizes to a fairly consistent pattern of objects condensing from what was left behind of other objects, with some events more probable than others, and so on.

Certain objects pass out of the scope and the material of those objects is then available for the expansion of the system.

Now, here's the question: can you name the system I am thinking of?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?

It is lie theists defending provable creationism.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
39,121
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?
Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,600
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?
Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.
Not only that, but, I think I have made my point about the fact that we have, without noticing it or intending to do it, reified systems which themselves feature big bang mechanics:

...
Now, here's the question: can you name the system I am thinking of?


I reiterate: when I reify the same system on different platforms, the Cosmologies of the system are in superposition -- it is both Cosmologies until an influence reifies into the behavior of the system some event which differentiates it.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,232
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?
Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.

We have a new lab. The James Web Telescope. For some years now a major lab was the Hubble telescope.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,709
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?
Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.

We have a new lab. The James Web Telescope. For some years now a major lab was the Hubble telescope.
These are not laboratories. No* experiments are being done in astronomy. Only observations.

*DART mission may count, if you consider that "astronomy". But it has limited scope within astronomy.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,615
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?
Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.

We have a new lab. The James Web Telescope. For some years now a major lab was the Hubble telescope.
These are not laboratories. No* experiments are being done in astronomy. Only observations.

*DART mission may count, if you consider that "astronomy". But it has limited scope within astronomy.
Nonsense.

For instance, Einstein's theory entailed light's being bent by mass. So astronomers figured out how to test that. They predicted that stars would seem to be out of place when viewed next to a (closer) massive object. Then they ran the test and confirmed that stars do seem to move when they pass behind massive objects. Mass does bend light.

Theory, hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis. That's an experiment. It happens all the time in astronomy.

That's why we have to talk about dark matter, because astronomers experimentally determined that there isn't enough known matter in galaxies to hold them together.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,709
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?
Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.

We have a new lab. The James Web Telescope. For some years now a major lab was the Hubble telescope.
These are not laboratories. No* experiments are being done in astronomy. Only observations.

*DART mission may count, if you consider that "astronomy". But it has limited scope within astronomy.
Nonsense.

For instance, Einstein's theory entailed light's being bent by mass. So astronomers figured out how to test that. They predicted that stars would seem to be out of place when viewed next to a (closer) massive object. Then they ran the test and confirmed that stars do seem to move when they pass behind massive objects. Mass does bend light.

Theory, hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis. That's an experiment. It happens all the time in astronomy.

That's why we have to talk about dark matter, because astronomers experimentally determined that there isn't enough known matter in galaxies to hold them together.
I am just arguing the semantics. Astronomers have observationally determined. I would imagine an astronomical "experiment" would be something like: "let's add more metals to that star's atmosphere and see what its spectrum looks like", or "let's make a sample of stars with different masses, let them grow in the lab and see which ones explode first", or, to use your example, "let's place different massive objects in front of some background stars and measure the distortions". Astronomers don't have control over the independent variables of what they study. However, by observing enough objects they can piece together relationships based on those independent variables and assess theories with the observations. Nature can provide us what we need in many cases.

I don't think we disagree on what astronomers do; I just balk at using the word "experiment" because it connotes certain things to me that astronomers can't do. Sometimes I am too pedantic about scientific terms.
 
Last edited:

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Lets not forget the Large Hadron Collider. Also, Steve doesn't seem to understand how scientific models work.
I understand only two well. Elecronics is based on quantum mechanical models used in simulations, SPICE models. There are multiple levels of models depnding on what you are doing. Are you familiar with Ebers-Moll?

Are you famier with mosfet model parametrs and what they mean at the QM level?

When I was at Lockheed our group had space in a microwave chip facility. I knew someone whose job was taking measurement data on microwave parts and developing simulation models for the chip designers. Her degree was physics.

I have a relatve who workd on the cryogenic coolig systen for the Brookhavne RHIC ring. I got to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber. In a colision experiment do you know how partcles are detected without looking it up?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,466
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.
So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?

It is lie theists defending provable creationism.
That's a response right out of the shitheap beloved of creationists. Seriously, only the characteristic spelling mistake makes it distinguishable from a cut-and-paste from a creationist website.

It's of course 100% true, justified, reasonable, righteous and godly, to assert (without a shred of evidence) that anything not done in a laboratory under controlled conditions isn't science. :rolleyesa:

Next these atheistic communist evildoers will be trying to claim as "science" things done by people who weren't even wearing a white coat at the time.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
39,121
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Lets not forget the Large Hadron Collider. Also, Steve doesn't seem to understand how scientific models work.
I understand only two well. Elecronics is based on quantum mechanical models used in simulations, SPICE models. There are multiple levels of models depnding on what you are doing. Are you familiar with Ebers-Moll?

Are you famier with mosfet model parametrs and what they mean at the QM level?

When I was at Lockheed our group had space in a microwave chip facility. I knew someone whose job was taking measurement data on microwave parts and developing simulation models for the chip designers. Her degree was physics.

I have a relatve who workd on the cryogenic coolig systen for the Brookhavne RHIC ring. I got to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber. In a colision experiment do you know how partcles are detected without looking it up?
A really small net.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,570
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Lets not forget the Large Hadron Collider. Also, Steve doesn't seem to understand how scientific models work.
I understand only two well. Elecronics is based on quantum mechanical models used in simulations, SPICE models. There are multiple levels of models depnding on what you are doing. Are you familiar with Ebers-Moll?

Are you famier with mosfet model parametrs and what they mean at the QM level?

When I was at Lockheed our group had space in a microwave chip facility. I knew someone whose job was taking measurement data on microwave parts and developing simulation models for the chip designers. Her degree was physics.

I have a relatve who workd on the cryogenic coolig systen for the Brookhavne RHIC ring. I got to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber. In a colision experiment do you know how partcles are detected without looking it up?
A really small net.
You obvious;y understand the true nature of the question and thread.
 
Top Bottom